TEACHING WITH PRIMARY SOURCES—MTSU
Lesson Plan:
The Bill of Rights and Its Impact on You
Grade: 8
Subject: Social Studies (U.S. History)
Time Required: Two 45-minute class periods
Author: John Mallick, John Sevier Middle School,
Kingsport City Schools
OVERVIEW
The first ten amendments to the Constitution make
up the Bill of Rights. Written by James Madison in
response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, the Bill
of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental Temple of liberty [1834]; see also this description
power. For example, what the Founders saw as the
natural right of individuals to speak and worship
freely was protected by the First Amendment’s proCURRICULUM STANDARDS
hibitions on Congress from making laws establishing
8th Grade Social Studies
a religion or abridging freedom of speech. Further8.34 Write an opinion piece arguing or the importance of a parmore, the natural right to be free from unreasonable
ticular right as it impacts individuals and/or groups, using evigovernment intrusion in one’s home was safeguarded
dence form the Bill of Rights and contemporary informational
by the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements.
text. (P)
The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are still being
8th Grade English/Language Arts
interpreted, discussed, and argued by Americans in
Reading: Informational Text – Key Ideas and Details.
the 21st century.
1. Cite the textual evidence that most strongly supports an analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn
UNDERSTANDING GOAL
from the text.
The students will apply their knowledge on the im2. Determine a central idea of a text and analyze its development
pact of the Bill of Rights to individuals or a group of
over the course of the text, including its relationship to supportcitizens.
ing ideas; provide an objective summary of the text.
OBJECTIVE
Students will examine and interpret primary sources
to write to write an opinion piece on the impact of
the Bill of Rights on individuals and or a group of
citizens.
INVESTIGATIVE QUESTION
What is the impact of a right from the 18th-century
Bill of Rights on American individuals or on groups
of citizens in 21st-century America?
3. Analyze how a text makes connections among and distinctions
between individuals, ideas, or events (e.g., through comparisons, analogies, or categories).
Writing
Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence.
 Introduce claim(s), acknowledge and distinguish the claim
(s) from alternate or opposing claims, and organize the reasons and evidence logically.
Continued on p. 2.
1
Writing standards continued from p. 1.
 Support claim(s) with logical reasoning and relevant evidence, using accurate, credible sources and demonstrate
an understanding of the topics or text.
 Use words, phrases, and clauses to create cohesion and
clarify the relationships among claim(s), counterclaims,
responses and evidence.
 Establish and maintain a formal style.
 Provide a concluding statement or section that follows
from and supports the argument presented.
PRIMARY SOURCES
MATERIALS
ARTICLES (pages 10-15 below)













Smart Board/Projector
A 3-minute guide to the Bill of Rights - Belinda
Stutzman, YouTube video
Chart of Selected Amendments and Their Origins
(pp. 5-6 below)
Creating the Bill of Rights, Special Presentation
within Creating the United States exhibition
Magna Carta: Muse and Mentor exhibition
Sheets of lined notebook paper



TPS-MTSU Image Analysis Form
Index cards (for exit tickets)
Extended Response Rubric U.S. History (available
from the TN Department of Education, pp. 38-39
[pp. 46-47 within the PDF]))
POW TREE + C graphic organizer for writing an
essay (available from the TN Department of Education, p. 46 [p. 54 within the PDF])
Bill of Rights [see also World Digital Library manuscript and National Archives transcription]
“Four Freedoms poster”: OURS. . . to Fight for:
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom
from Want, Freedom from Fear [1943] by Norman
Rockwell
 Freedom of Speech (separate image)
 Freedom of Worship (separate image)
“Mistrial in Seabrook police brutality case,” by Max
Sullivan, Seacoastonline.com, May 26, 2014 [original
link]
“'Guns-in-trunks' legislation may be back,” by Josh
Brown, The Tennessean, August 21, 2012 [original
link]
“Lawsuit regarding prayer at school board meetings
dismissed,” by Chad Mills & Renee Standera,
WISTV, December 10, 2014 [original link]
Search and Seizure question, excerpted from
Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow, Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, (New York, NY:
The New Press 2010), pp. 68-69.
James Madison, President of the United
States / T. Sully del. ;
D. Edwin fecit.
[between 1809 and
1817]
OURS. . . to Fight for:
Freedom of Speech,
Freedom of Worship,
Freedom from Want,
Freedom from Fear
[1943]
2
PROCEDURE
Day 1: The influences on the American Bill of Rights and its impact on you
Step 1
As a refresher from the previous lesson on the Constitution/Bill of Rights, show on the Smart Board/projector a
short YouTube video clip, “A 3-minute guide to the Bill of Rights - Belinda Stutzman.” After the video clip is
completed, the teacher will randomly select students to comment on their reactions to the content of the video.
Step 2
The teacher will discuss the early influences on the American Bill of Rights using the Library of Congress online
exhibitions, Magna Carta: Muse and Mentor and Creating the United States. Be sure to point out and discuss the
Magna Carta (1215), the English Declaration of Rights (1689), and the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776).
Pass out the Chart of Selected Amendments and Their Origins so that each student has a copy. The teacher may
also wish to walk students through the interactive presentation called Creating the Bill of Rights. This presentation allows you to explore the influences on five of the major rights protected by the Bill of Rights—just click on
the “Explore” buttons. Students can use this presentation to make additional notes to their charts.
Step 3
Instruct students to write on a sheet of notebook paper, in one sentence, what they think is the most important
right. Call on student volunteers to share their answers with the class and to justify why they chose that particular
right. Which of the amendments seems to be the one most frequently chosen? Why do they think that is?
Step 4
Students will now take a fresh look at the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and how they apply to different
time periods. Project onto the Smart Board/projector the image of Norman Rockwell’s “Four Freedoms” poster.
Explain that this poster was produced in 1943 during World War II to help encourage Americans to invest in the
war effort.
Step 5
The teacher will break the class into student groups of four. Each group will require 1) four copies of the Image
Analysis Form; 2) one copy of “The Four Freedoms” poster; and 3) one copy of the American Bill of Rights in
transcription (or use a copy from your eighth grade American history textbook).
Step 6
Within each group of four, two students are to focus on the Freedom of Speech image, and two are to focus on
the Freedom of Worship image (don’t worry about the bottom two images for now). You may even wish to give
them copies of just the Freedom of Speech image or the Freedom of Worship image, to help them focus. Working in pairs, students will analyze their image using the Image Analysis Form. Then, students will share their observations and conclusions within their group.
Optional: The teacher may choose to challenge students’ thinking skills by asking them to look at the bottom two
images, Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear, and ask how those two images represent a right from the
first ten amendments. Can you even interpret these as rights? What’s the difference between a right and a freedom?
Step 7
The teacher will then direct the groups to write three sentences, on a clean sheet of paper, about how this poster
relates to the American Bill of Rights. The teacher will allow 20 minutes for the student groups to complete their
assignment. At the end of the assignment, the teacher will ask each group (time permitting) to share their analyses with the class.
Step 8
At the close of class, the teacher will summarize the lesson. Then the teacher will hand out to each student a
blank index card. The students will write on their card what they learned from their lesson and give the completed card to the teacher as the students leave the classroom. The teacher will review the cards for student learning.
Bill of Rights [1789, detail of Article the Third, better known today as the First Amendment]
3
PROCEDURE, CONTINUED
Day 2: Writing and opinion-based essay on a particular right that impacts you or a group of citizens,
citing evidence from the Bill of Rights and contemporary informational text
Step 9
Explain to the students that the lesson will be the students writing an opinion essay arguing for the importance of
a particular right as it impacts individuals and/or groups, using evidence from the Bill of Rights and accompanying
informational text.
Step 10
The teacher will review the student exit cards from the previous day with students for re-teaching purposes.
Step 11
The teacher will explain to the students that they will write an opinion essay on the importance of a particular
right as it impacts individuals and /or groups, using evidence from the Bill of Rights and contemporary text.
Teachers will explain what’s expected of their essays by summarizing the main points from the Extended Response Rubric (scroll to pp. 38-39/46-47).
Step 12
Lastly, the teacher will pass out to the students a POW TREE + C graphic organizer to assist them in writing
their essay. Go over the graphic organizer first to explain to students how to fill it out. Then, model the process
by selecting a different amendment (such as the 14th), and filling out the graphic organizer with opinions and information pertinent to this amendment (such as this article about how the 14th amendment will play a role in the
upcoming Supreme Court decision on affirmative action).
Step 13
Students (now working independently; i.e., not in groups) will now select one out of four articles or excerpts
having to do with the First Amendment (Lawsuit regarding prayer), the Second Amendment (Guns-in-trunks),
the Fourth Amendment (Search and Seizure), and the Sixth Amendment (Mistrial in Seabrook). The students will
use their POW TREE + C graphic organizers, the Bill of Rights, and their chosen articles to complete their essays. Be sure to restate the Investigative Question so that students can focus on answering it through their essays.
Step 14
The students will turn in their completed essays to the teacher for grading. The teacher will use the essays to
determine what the students have learned about the impact of the Bill of Rights on individuals or groups. The
teacher will end the class by summarizing the lesson.
EVALUATION
25% for the 1st day – completion grade on the Image Analysis Form and group work participation.
75% for the 2nd day – argumentative essay on the Bill of Rights using the rubric for extended response.
The teacher will be walking among the students to answer any questions and to ensure that the students are on task.
EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
Activity 1 – Student Game titled “Life Without the Bill of Rights”
The students with their laptop computer or I-Pad could log into this Bill of Rights Institute game titled “Life Without the Bill of
Rights.” If the students do not have access to a laptop computer or an iPad, the teacher can display and facilitate this game on the
Smart Board/projector. The teacher will first model how the game is played and then walk around the classroom to answer student
questions as they play the game. After the students have completed the game, the teacher will ask the students what their lives would
be like if they did not have the rights listed in the Bill of Rights.
Activity 2 – Watch a YouTube video titled “Bill of Rights (Shake it Off)”
As a refresher from the previous lesson on the Constitution/Bill of Rights, show on the Smart Board /projector a short YouTube video clip, “Bill of Rights (Shake It Off).” After students have watched the video once or twice, the teacher will randomly select students to explain their reactions to the content of the video. Time permitting, the teacher will instruct each student to write his or her
own four-line song about their understanding of the American Bill of Rights.
4
Which is evident from these quotes from
the influencing documents:
“That the Freedom of Speech, and Debates or
Proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out
of Parliament.”
“All Men should enjoy the fullest Toleration in
the Exercise of Religion, according to the Dictates of Conscience, unpunished and unrestrained
by the Magistrate.”
“That the Subjects, which are Protestants may
have Arms for their Defence suitable to their
Conditions, and as allowed by Law.”
“That a well regulated militia, composed of the
body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that
standing armies, in time of peace, should be
avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all
cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
“That general warrants, whereby any officer or
messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed,
or to seize any person or persons not named, or
whose offence is not particularly described and
supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be granted.”
This amendment was influenced by…
English Declaration of Rights (1689)
Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)
English Declaration of Rights
Virginia Declaration of Rights
Virginia Declaration of Rights
Selected focus of amendment
(not complete amendment):
Freedom of religion
Freedom of speech
Right to bear arms
Searches and seizures
First
Second
Fourth
PAGE 1 OF 2
SELECTED AMENDMENT:
CHART OF SELECTED AMENDMENTS AND THEIR ORIGINS -
Magna Carta
Magna Carta
Magna Carta
Jury must hear evidence from both
sides
Right to a speedy trial
Cruel and unusual punishment
“A freeman shall not be amerced for a slight offense, except
in accordance with the degree of the offense; and for a grave
offense he shall be amerced in accordance with the gravity of
the offense.”
“To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay,
right or justice.”
For more influences on all ten amendments from the Bill of Rights, see http://teachingamericanhistory.org/bor/origins/.
Eighth
“That Jurors ought to be duly Impannelled, and Returned,
and Jurors which pass upon Men in Trials for High Treason
ought to be Freeholders.”
English Declaration of Rights
Trial by jury
Sixth
“No bailiff for the future shall, upon his own unsupported
complaint, put anyone to his ‘law’, without credible witnesses brought for this purposes.”
“No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or
exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor
send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers
or by the law of the land.”
Magna Carta (1215)
Due process
PAGE 2 OF 2
Fifth
CHART OF SELECTED AMENDMENTS AND THEIR ORIGINS -
COURT
Mistrial in Seabrook police brutality case
Juror believes marijuana gives its user 'super-human strength'
By Max Sullivan
msullivan@seacoastonline.com
Posted May. 26, 2015 at 4:36 PM
Updated May 26, 2015 at 10:51 PM
BRENTWOOD — A mistrial was declared Tuesday in the police brutality case of ex-Seabrook patrolman Mark Richardson, hours
after the jury said it was being held up by one juror who believes marijuana gives its user "super-human strength."
Assistant Attorney General Geoff Ward said the outcome was "disappointing," but that he expects a re-trial. The initial trial began
last week with the case going to the jury on Friday afternoon.
The victim in the case, Michael Bergeron Jr., was charged with marijuana possession the night former Seabrook patrolman Mark
Richardson allegedly slammed his head into a wall.
Richardson was on trial for one count of simple assault by an on-duty law enforcement officer. The incident took place Nov. 11,
2009, but it did not surface until Bergeron posted a surveillance video of the alleged assault on YouTube in 2014. He could have
faced 2-5 years in prison if convicted. He was also fired from his job.
Richardson's defense attorney, Peter Perroni, said he and his client respect the jury process.
"It seems pretty clear the jury clearly evaluated the evidence," Perroni said. "We'll continue to maintain our innocence."
The jury had reported early Tuesday afternoon it had reached an impasse due to the juror's concern.
At the time, Ward said the prosecution was concerned about an "unwillingness" by the juror who expressed the "super-human"
strength concern about marijuana to hear other views on the issue. He requested that they be allowed to have an "inquiry" with
the juror to determine if they need to be dismissed.
Defense Attorney Peter Perroni opposed the request, saying it would interfere with the deliberation.
"I don't think there's any basis to prompt (the juror) as to what's his thinking," Perroni said. "That's the very essence of inserting
ourselves into the deliberation process which we're not supposed to do."
Judge N. William Delker denied the request, saying "I don't think further inquiry of that person is appropriate."
Delker then called the jury into the courtroom, saying despite the impasse he would like them to continue deliberating. Later in the
day, the mistrial was declared.
Perroni argued during last week's trial that Richardson's action must be put into "context."
Continued on next page...
Bergeron was "belligerent," "drunk" and "unpredictable," he said. The 19-year-old was difficult from the moment he was pulled
over up until the incident, according to testimony from Richardson and other officers present that night. Bergeron constantly
yelled, cursed and made verbal threats like "I'm going to kick you're (expletive removed)," officers testified. He kicked the partition
in the police cruiser and slipped his legs through his arms to bring his cuffed hands in front of him, they said. He tried flooding the
toilet in his cell with his clothes and then whipped his soaked T-shirt at his cell bars.
Assistant Attorneys General Jay McCormack and Ward argued that Richardson's action was unreasonable based on standards for
use of force in law enforcement. They pointed out that a threat must be imminent for force to be applied, and that there appeared
to be no real threat in the hallway.
At one point, the prosecution stopped the video of the alleged assault in the second in which the Richardson's arm bar move began. They pointed out Bergeron's arms were down by his side and that he faced forward, appearing to be no threat.
Source: http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20150526/NEWS/150529298/101141/NEWS
QUESTION TO CONSIDER:
Does declaring a mistrial based on the actions of one juror violate your right to a speedy
trial and impartial jury?
'Guns-in-trunks' legislation may be back
State lawmakers likely to bring issue back for debate in 2013
Aug. 21, 2012
Written by
Josh Brown
The Tennessean
The next state lawmaking session is five months away, but gun rights and business groups are already gearing up for another fight
over whether workers can keep guns inside their vehicles on the job.
Bills that would allow gun owners to keep firearms in their cars, even in their employers’ parking lots, have percolated in the General Assembly for several years. During the most recent legislative session, such measures never made it to the House or Senate
floor for a vote.
But the discussion next year could look different. Second Amendment advocates spent tens of thousands of dollars on ads attacking state Rep. Debra Maggart, R-Hendersonville, who earlier this year blocked a “guns-in-trunks” measure. She lost her bid for reelection.
Even before this month’s primary elections in Tennessee, a coalition of 20 business groups from across the state sent letters to
legislative candidates warning them about the potential impact passage would have.
“It creates a dangerous working environment for employees, customers and visitors,” the groups wrote in a July 24 letter. “It burdens a business with expensive potential liability at a time when they can least afford it.”
Still, two lawmakers have indicated they plan to introduce guns-in-trunks bills in 2013.
“I have filed the bill for the last four years, and I am sure it will be filed again,” Rep. Joshua Evans, R-Greenbrier, said in an email.
“That does not mean it will move forward this session, but I think we will sit down and have a full discussion on the issue with the
caucus and with all of the interested stakeholders.”
State Sen. Stacey Campfield, R-Knoxville, said he also is considering sponsoring a measure.
“I’m open to being the vehicle to move some things forward,” he said. “But I don’t want to get involved if anyone is making threats
at people.”
NRA stands firm
Campfield was referring to the National Rifle Association, which spent more than $75,000 on ads attacking Maggart. Campfield said
many legislators are upset over the NRA turning on lawmakers who traditionally have supported gun rights legislation.
“They didn’t think things were handled fairly,” he said. “A lot of people just think they were just trying to flex some muscle.”
Chris Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist, said the group is unapologetic about its pursuit of Second Amendment rights.
“The leadership kept it bottled up and wouldn’t allow a vote,” he said. “We will continue to pursue what we consider a self-defense
legislation.”
Business groups that opposed the bills said some versions were too broad and seemed to allow gun owners to take their firearms
onto any private property against the wishes of its owner — including residences and open parking lots owned by businesses such
as retailers and theaters. Under current state law, businesses can prohibit guns inside their buildings and in their parking lots.
Cox said it was never the NRA’s intention to allow guns to be taken into private residences, and the group would support an exemption.
“There’s a difference between a driveway at home and a parking lot at work,” he said.
Continued on next page...
'Balancing of rights'
Bill Ozier, chairman of the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said businesses need to be allowed to maintain a safe
workplace for their employees.
“This is not an anti-gun position from the business community,” he said. “It’s more of a balancing of rights. There are lots of chamber members who are very pro-gun … hunters, target shooters. We’re not trying to restrict anyone’s rights in those areas.”
In the most recent legislative session, business groups accused the NRA of being unwilling to work toward a compromise, such as
adding exemptions for employers who control access to their parking lots with gates or security guards.
In Georgia, the NRA backed a bill that offered a similar exemption.
In a bid to help reach a resolution, the chamber might go as far as proposing a bill itself during the next session, Ozier said.
“We are looking at, is there a bill that we can propose that would provide some of what the NRA and other groups are looking for,
but at the same time protect the property rights of employers and property owners?” he said.
Cox said there’s always room for discussion. “But we won’t back away from our position, which is that law-abiding citizens have a
fundamental right to defend themselves to and from work,” he said.
The recent shootings in Colorado and elsewhere also have highlighted the importance of having a meaningful discussion on guns-in
-trunks proposals, Ozier said.
“I think it just more reinforces the feeling that we need to control what is brought onto our private property,” he said. “I’m not
sure having more people armed is the answer to all of that.”
Zan Blue, who represents the Tennessee Business Roundtable, another group that opposes the gun rights measures, said recent
high-profile shootings, including in Colorado, will have little impact on the outcome of next year’s legislative session.
“It’s going to have an affect on the nature of the debate, but I don’t think it’s going to change anyone’s positions,” Blue said.
Meanwhile, businesses will be watching carefully. Many hope any new law doesn’t rein in their ability to decide for themselves.
Jerry Askew, senior vice president for governmental relations at Knoxville-based Tennova Healthcare, said his company is opposed
to measures that would allow guns in hospital parking lots.
“Given the increasing violence against health care workers that we see across the nation, particularly in emergency rooms, I don’t
think we have any choice but to maintain our position against the introduction of more weapons at our hospitals.”
Some businesses, such as General Shale Inc., a Johnson City-based brick and concrete block manufacturer and supplier, are caught
in the middle.
“We are a company with private property rights,” Mark Kinser, the company’s vice president of corporate development, said. “But
we also have employees who have their rights under the Second Amendment. We have a policy that no firearms are allowed on
our property. Do we search cars? No.”
Kinser said he can see both sides.
“I’m not saying we’re in support one way or another as a company,” he said. “If the legislation came through tomorrow, then we
would have to address it.”
Source: http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120821/NEWS0201/308210015/-Guns-trunks-legislation-may-back
QUESTION TO CONSIDER:
Does the proposed legislation violate your Second Amendment right to bear arms?
Lawsuit regarding prayer at school board meetings dismissed.
Posted: Dec 10, 2014 2:58 PM EDT
Updated: Dec 20, 2014 3:03 PM EDT
By Chad Mills
By Renee Standera
COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) A First Amendment controversy could finally be coming to a close. A federal judge has ordered a case against a local school board
to be dismissed. And it means that board members there will continue to pray before meetings.
A collection of Midlands students and a group out of Wisconsin that advocates for the separation of church and state filed a lawsuit
against the School District Five of Lexington and Richland Counties two years ago. Now, that fight could be almost over.
Lexington-Richland Five board members can keep on praying, according to court documents.
"The other side of this case, they're trying to expunge religion from public life,” said Oran Smith. “They're trying to separate religion
and run it out of public life. I don't think that's what the founding fathers intended."
Back in 2012, four students and the Freedom From Religion Foundation sued the school district over prayers said at commencement ceremonies and later opposed the board meeting prayers too.
Both sides settled on an agreement regarding prayer at commencement ceremonies after the school district changed its policy.
But the issue of board meeting prayers was unsettled until now.
"Well, I think the argument for 'separation of church and state' would assume, somehow, that the school district is attempting to
support one particular religion, and that's not the case here at all. It's a free public forum," Smith said.
The district said the prayers are "non-sectarian" and don't push one particular "faith or belief."
Smith, president of the Palmetto Family Council said that's an important distinction.
"That's the key word,” Smith said. “There can't be proselytizing."
Just days ago, a federal judge filed to dismiss the case against the district. And in a previous order, Judge Cameron Currie said that
the student plaintiffs had no standing -- because they never attended a board meeting during the time in question.
"The concern that I have with this is you have organizations that are filing these lawsuits, because their world is to try to force religion out of public life, and they seem to have unlimited resources to be able to do it," Smith said.
The dismissal isn't a done deal just yet as both sides are still in the process of settlement.
Because of that, the attorney for the students said it's still inappropriate to comment and reminded that the ball hasn't crossed the
line just yet.
An attorney for the district told said it's a waste to keep fighting and the pre-meeting prayers will continue.
Copyright 2013 WIS. All rights reserved
Source: http://www.wistv.com/story/27597031/lawsuit-regarding-prayer-at-school-board-meetings-dismissed
QUESTION TO CONSIDER:
Do you think prayer at public meetings violate the First Amendment’s separation between
church and state?
Search and Seizure question, excerpted from
Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow, Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, (New York, NY: The New
Press 2010), pp. 68-69.
A few months later, in Ohio v. Robinette, the Court took its twisted logic one step further. In that case, a police
officer pulled over Robert Robinette, allegedly for speeding. After checking Robinette’s license and issuing a warning (but
no ticket), the officer then ordered Robinette out of his vehicle, turned on a video camera in the officer’s car, and then
asked Robinette whether he was carrying any drugs and would “consent” to a search. He did. The officer found a small
amount of marijuana in Robinette’s car, and a single pill, which turned out to be methamphetamine.
The Ohio Supreme Court, reviewing the case on appeal, was obviously uncomfortable with the blatant fishing expedition for drugs. The court noted that traffic stops were increasingly being used in the War on Drugs to extract
“consent” for searches, and that motorists may not believe they are free to refuse consent and simply drive away. In an effort to provide some minimal protection for motorists, the Ohio court adopted a bright-line rule, that is, an unambiguous
requirement that officers tell motorists they are free to leave before asking for consent to search their vehicles. At the very
least, the justices reasoned, motorists should know they have the right to refuse consent and to leave, if they so choose.
The U. S. Supreme Court struck down this basic requirement as “unrealistic.” In so doing, the Court made clear
to all lower courts that, from now on, the Fourth Amendment should place no meaningful constraints on the police in the
War on Drugs. No one needs to be informed of their rights during a stop or search, and police may use traffic stops as well
as the myth of “consent” to stop and search anyone they choose for imaginary drug crimes, whether or not any evidence of
illegal drug activity actually exists.
QUESTION TO CONSIDER:
Does this decision (that is, not to make police officers tell motorists that they have the
right to refuse consent to be searched) violate your Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures?